posted at 8:50 pm on December 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

So says Stephen Hayes, reporting for the Weekly Standard. If he’s right, then your final three for the Republican presidential nomination are the guy who came up with RomneyCare, the guy who got blown out in Pennsylvania by almost 20 points five years ago, and Ron Paul.

Second look at seppuku?

A CNN poll of registered Iowa Republicans released Wednesday puts Santorum in third place with 16 percent of the vote – his highest share yet. It’s not an outlier. In fact, data from Perry’s internal daily tracking polling shows that the Santorum surge is real and that he has the potential to continue gaining in the days before voters gather for the caucuses next Tuesday.

The polling was described to TWS by a strategist for a rival campaign and confirmed by a source familiar with the numbers. The four important takeaways from Perry’s polling: Mitt Romney is “pulling away” from a group of four second-tier candidates bunched together behind him; Ron Paul’s numbers have dropped steadily in the aftermath of the attention given his troubling newsletters; Santorum’s rise has coincided with the erosion of support for Newt Gingrich; and Michele Bachmann is in danger of becoming a non-factor in the race…

One number Team Romney is watching carefully is Bachmann’s. According to a senior Iowa Republican, Romney’s team is concerned that if her support dips below 8-10 percent of the vote – where she’s been hanging in recent weeks – Santorum could present Romney with a real challenge. And further erosion for Bachmann could happen. On Wednesday, her campaign chairman defected to Ron Paul’s campaign and now a Super Pac that was once supporting her candidacy is backing Romney.

If Romney’s pulling away then I’m not sure why it matters who’s surging and who isn’t. That said, the point about Bachmann’s fade is interesting and timely given that she lost another senior staffer today: Romney (and Paul) need to divide the social-con candidates in order to conquer, so if Santorum is emerging from that bracket, then the best hope for the “Anyone But Mitt” diehards out there is for Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann to fold ASAP. Bachmann will quit after Iowa, I think, but the other two will soldier on — potentially to Romney’s benefit and Santorum’s detriment in South Carolina.

One more detail about Bachmann, via Politico: The long-held suspicions that she’s been going easy on Mitt and hard on his opponents because she covets the VP spot are … confirmed.

She repeatedly passed up opportunities to ding Mitt Romney in the debates — a product, Rollins said, of preserving her options for sharing a ticket with him.

“There was some talk early on between her and her husband that she could end up as the vice presidential nominee,” Rollins said.

I’ve argued before that she couldn’t possibly seriously think Romney would put her on the ticket, but there you go. Strange days, my friends. Meanwhile, the good news for Santorum is that he’s in for a weekend full of sunny press and then, if he wins, another week after that in the run-up to New Hampshire. The media loves a cinderella story and political journalists find it gratifying to see his old-school Iowa strategy — camp out, hit all 99 counties, press the flesh — paying off. He’s their guy, right up until the moment when he starts to look like he has an outside shot at the nomination, when they’ll turn on him as some sort of “American Taliban” holy warrior or whatever. For a sharper critique, read Erick Erickson’s take on Santorum as more of a “pro-life statist” than a conservative. Reason enough not to prefer him to Mitt?

Here’s Perry’s ad taking aim at the new social conservative frontrunner; Santorum’s allies are already punching back. Just think, if all goes according to Romney’s plan in Iowa, we’ll be spending next Wednesday batting around suggestions for who should primary him four years from now. Exit question: In 2008, two-thirds of the party didn’t like the nominee. This year, three-quarters don’t. When do we get someone who can excite a majority of Republicans?

I guess Santorum shovels the snow outside of Perry’s campaign headquarters and in return Santorum gets to talk to Perry’s pollster for an hour. Then Santorum stands outside of the Ames 7/11 for an hour dressed as a homeless man panhandling for enough gas money to do his 3 oclock in Waterloo.

I live here but my congressman is Mike Kelly; when it comes to Pennsylvania, all the stuff happens in Harrisburg. The one thing that gets people on edge is that he is not inclined on the 10th Amendment. He needs to see the light and give the states some room for them to breathe. To me, his loss depends on what happened or what caused it. I don’t know what happened other than I read the same parrotted line here that he lost big in PA, and that’s it.

Here in Erie, Kathy Dahlkemper decided to be in the gang of blue dogs that made Obamacare possible. We got Stupack’d, so we voted her out. Crass mistake on her part in our debate: Bring up Cash for Clunkers.

She was debating a Tea Party car dealership owner. Major smackdown trying to make it look like Kelly made money on the program. Nowadays he’s taking care of the Volt debacle.

Strange. I figured a sitting Senator losing 41% to 59% would be bigger news there. Anyway, if Santorum’s surge continues, I’m sure we will start hearing about all of Santorum’s skeletons.

Perry took office Dec. 21, 2000 — nearly five months into fiscal year 2001. At the end of that year, Texas had $13.7 billion in outstanding bonds and notes. Adjusting for inflation, that would have equaled $16.6 billion in 2009.

PS: I can’t vouch for politifact’s accuracy. They make a ton of errors.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 29, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Then I wouldn’t even bother including them in comments – especially in light of his low numbers and the strong probability he won’t make it past Iowa. It’s not as if it will influence anyone or change minds anyway.

I don’t mean that in a nasty way, lol, more like “just sayin” it’s kinda fruitless. (As is cheerleading for any candidate.)

Rick Santy has worked Iowa harder than anyone.
He’s hoping a good placing there will get him some attention in SC. He does not have the organization or money to work the other states like Iowa. I hope he does well, and gets the snowball effect he’s looking for.

So without at least a 2nd place showing in Iowa, you should be prepared for the possibility Perry will drop out. As should supporters of other candidates. It’s just the nature of the game.
whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM

I have no problem with Perry dropping out..I trust that he will let us know..:)
Dire Straits on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Well, if you’re a supporter of any candidate it’s always disappointing if/when the candidate drops out. My thinking here is that Perry is cushioning the blow, usually candidates at this point are nothing but “we’re gonna win it!’, even when it’s just a facade. Politics will break your heart if you take it too seriously.

Rick Santorum, this year’s Huckabee? Santorum will not win any swing state, nor will he win Iowa in the general. If it goes Santorum, Paul, Romney, Newt Iowa needs to stop going first. Plain and simple. They are not representative of the broad conservative movement and never actually vote for the GOP in the general.

Does talking to candidates essentially mean they shaked your hand and moved on down the line? Probably.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Actually, if you read what I said, I have been at small fundraisers where we were in people’s houses or at other small venues. Also, because I have actively volunteered at the Dallas GOP, I get to go to things that I would never be able to afford.

I have never met a candidate on a “rope line”. I only talk to them in person and yes it is usually in some rich person’s living room and the conversation is of some length. Example: Despite media denials that very day, Kay Bailey Hutchison, when asked by my husband if she was running for governor, looked us right in the eye and told us YES. I’m sure she thought that by virtue of us being at this very rich politician’s home that we were one of the elite insiders. It is amazing how we are treated at these events.

What Santy needs to do is come out and announce he’s gay and been self loathing for years and he’s a changed man and he will fight homophobes and haters of sodomy every day as president. If he does that and wears one of those turtlenecks he likes, I know he’d get my vote and a lot of others out there. He’s probably wrap this nomination up because let’s face it, we like our candidates to be more gay.

Strange. I figured a sitting Senator losing 41% to 59% would be bigger news there. Anyway, if Santorum’s surge continues, I’m sure we will start hearing about all of Santorum’s skeletons.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM

I.don’t.know.what’s.the.deal! I moved here ten years ago from a totally different place with a heck of bad politics. Not unless PA polls him overall. Why did Perry ran ads here in NW PA? He cut ’em, he needs his cash in IA now. Aside from PA did anybody see any Perry ads in your states? Almost every Perry ad posted online, I already watched it on my teevee. Guess it’s time to check the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Perry has been saying for weeks that he’s staying in past IA and he has NEVER proclaimed that he’d “win” it. He has said that he thinks he’ll do better than the polls have shown, but that’s it. He’s in til FL because he’s got $$$$$.

If Romney’s pulling away then I’m not sure why it matters who’s surging and who isn’t.

Pulling away to 23%?

I still think Gingrich is the most likely nominee if he finishes ahead of Santorum (or any other surprise candidate).

It’s not going to be Paul. It’s probably not going to be Romney, whose outliers place him in the high 20s nationally, a new high for him, 15 points behind Gingrich, Cain, and Perry’s high water marks.

It could be Perry, but he’s shown an inability to regain support that’s surprised even me, who opposed him.

Santorum is absurd now, never mind when people actually start paying attention to him. His conservative credentials are no sounder than Perry’s or Gingrich’s, his fixations would make him a national laughingstock even in a year that wasn’t consumed by the economy, he has no money, and he lost his last election in PA by 18 points.

His margin of defeat as an incumbent was one of the largest in recent history. There was a reason why PA voters turned against him. From what I can gather, they blamed him for going along with many of the Bush era spending excesses like the expansion of Medicare.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Santorum lost in 2006 for five main reasons:
1) It’s Pennsylvania, a state that is deeply Democrat in its two main cities, and socially-conservative/economically-liberal in its rural areas. It’s very tough for a Republican to win there. There’s a reason Bob Casey, Sr., was so popular as Governor: he was a Dem who was a staunch social-con and economic moderate.
2) “Bob Casey” was once again on the Democrat ticket, even if Jr. was a far cry from his father. Just like Teddy rode Bobby’s & Jack’s caskets into office, Bob Jr. gained votes simply for being Bob Sr.’s son.
3) Santorum spent much of the 2004-2006 period talking about the threat that Iran posed, and the need for the US to address Iran sooner rather than later. By 2006, war fatigue from Iraq & Afghanistan was setting in, and the prospect of opening up at third Mid-East front to fight bearded misogynists was decidedly less popular.
4) Santorum was in the national press a lot in the few years leading up to ’06 taking unpopular (and overly-blunt) stands on principle. Pennsylvania doesn’t like Republicans who take strong stands or make the electorate feel uncomfortable [Dems get away with it b/c of party-line voters in PHL/PIT]. See: Specter, Arlen.

Santorum also burned a lot of bridges among state conservatives by supporting Specter (who the base loathed) over Toomey in ’04. Yes, he was essentially strong-armed into it by the Bush Admin. and RNC, but they didn’t bear the blame and he did.

Are those factors (or similar) in play nationwide? and Could Santorum overcome them? Maybe and maybe.

A Santorum presidency, however, would not be the worst option among the field by far, nor would his presidency result in either theocracy or DHS breaking into bedrooms to imprison sodomites (or other such nonsense).

One area he is certainly far ahead of the field on is Iran, who he’s been accurately ringing the warning bell about for a solid decade.

Well, for one thing, he barely made eye contact. He was just cold and gave off an arrogant vibe. And it wasn’t like there was a line of people waiting to shake his hand. Maybe he had something else on his mind but most successful politicians have perfected the art of putting people at ease and being likable.

For instance, even after I confronted Perry on immigration and gave him a hard time he is still warm and friendly and hugs you and seems glad to be talking to you. Maybe that is superficial but we can’t deny that likeability plays a role and to me, Santorum is not likable. And I say that as being one of his supporters for his stance on the 2006 immigration deal.

Santorum lost in 2006 for five main reasons:
1) It’s Pennsylvania, a state that is deeply Democrat in its two main cities, and socially-conservative/economically-liberal in its rural areas. It’s very tough for a Republican to win there. There’s a reason Bob Casey, Sr., was so popular as Governor: he was a Dem who was a staunch social-con and economic moderate.
2) “Bob Casey” was once again on the Democrat ticket, even if Jr. was a far cry from his father. Just like Teddy rode Bobby’s & Jack’s caskets into office, Bob Jr. gained votes simply for being Bob Sr.’s son.
3) Santorum spent much of the 2004-2006 period talking about the threat that Iran posed, and the need for the US to address Iran sooner rather than later. By 2006, war fatigue from Iraq & Afghanistan was setting in, and the prospect of opening up at third Mid-East front to fight bearded misogynists was decidedly less popular.
4) Santorum was in the national press a lot in the few years leading up to ’06 taking unpopular (and overly-blunt) stands on principle. Pennsylvania doesn’t like Republicans who take strong stands or make the electorate feel uncomfortable [Dems get away with it b/c of party-line voters in PHL/PIT]. See: Specter, Arlen.

Santorum also burned a lot of bridges among state conservatives by supporting Specter (who the base loathed) over Toomey in ’04. Yes, he was essentially strong-armed into it by the Bush Admin. and RNC, but they didn’t bear the blame and he did.

Are those factors (or similar) in play nationwide? and Could Santorum overcome them? Maybe and maybe.

A Santorum presidency, however, would not be the worst option among the field by far, nor would his presidency result in either theocracy or DHS breaking into bedrooms to imprison sodomites (or other such nonsense).

One area he is certainly far ahead of the field on is Iran, who he’s been accurately ringing the warning bell about for a solid decade.

Harpazo on December 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Oh yeah, I remember the Specter issue now. Good point about Iran. Santorum did a very good job on blasting Paul over Iran in the debates.

Agreed. I like Perry and had hoped he’d do better. But if he’s not going to be POTUS (and that’s looking increasingly unlikely), then he needs to stay governor of Texas. He’s done a bang-up job down there for a decade, and Texas is WAY too important to the country to turn the keys over to David Dewhurst.

I don’t want a candidate that puts self important voters at ease. I want one that will govern like a conservative. Calvin Coolidge never put anybody at ease.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I actually have thought people would think that but I really only tell about my experiences because I realize that most people aren’t in a position to do what I get to do.

I plan on dropping out of politics altogether if and when this country gets back on track. I have very small children and the GOP stuff if very time consuming. I only planned on being a poll watcher in 2008 but left the GOP office as precinct chair and election judge. Because of my close relationship with the Dallas GOP I’ve been fortunate.

Not sure why the rude attitude? PPF asked me about Santorum and I told her my experience.

I actually have thought people would think that but I really only tell about my experiences because I realize that most people aren’t in a position to do what I get to do.

I plan on dropping out of politics altogether if and when this country gets back on track. I have very small children and the GOP stuff if very time consuming. I only planned on being a poll watcher in 2008 but left the GOP office as precinct chair and election judge. Because of my close relationship with the Dallas GOP I’ve been fortunate.

Not sure why the rude attitude? PPF asked me about Santorum and I told her my experience.

mrsmwp on December 29, 2011 at 11:14 PM

No, thanks for writing about your experiences with Perry and Santorum. I appreciate it.

Perry has been saying for weeks that he’s staying in past IA and he has NEVER proclaimed that he’d “win” it. He has said that he thinks he’ll do better than the polls have shown, but that’s it. He’s in til FL because he’s got $$$$$.
Aslans Girl on December 29, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Well, we’ll see come Tuesday. But I addressed the “he’s got $$$” argument. Bachmann could go on til Florida if she had dollars, too, but it would just be a “vanity campaign”, an “excellent adventure”. You should understand reality most regularly decides such matters, even the best laid plans and all that.

If Romney wins does Ron Paul run 3rd party? This is his last shot at it.

BoxHead1 on December 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Part of me hopes that he does. I think he’s far less Ross Perot than many fear. And his staunch pacifism and foreign policy passivity would appeal more to disaffected and irate anti-war libs than his Austrian-based fiscal policies will appeal to fiscal-cons.

Won’t happen if Romney’s the nominee for several reasons. Those being that his ticket-balancing would more likely be South, demonstrably conservative, and electable.

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I’m admittedly a Paul Ryan fan, but I think Romney/Ryan is a perfect ticket. The Midwest is wide open this year. He’s already popular in Michigan because of his dad. Ryan could swing Wisconsin, which has been moving rightward for a few years, in his favor. If he wins those two states it’s over. Daniels and Pence are other options.

I’d love to see Romney/West, maybe it’ll help him in Florida. I don’t think Rubio will take VP, he doesn’t gain much from it and he’s still young.

The republican field really is terrible. We had 5 of the worst republicans possible run for president, Romney, Paul, Cain, Huntsman and Perry. They are awful candidates. Why not bring in the A-Team, Palin, Pence, West, Jindal and even Ryan they could all beat Obama.

Wow, so much to say….I just love the way we soak up all the polls and what others are saying….then we complain that the media is just trying to pull the conserv. chain. Guess what, they are and many cons are going with it.

Santorum can win this if cons would get behind him. Instead, let’s all be like the beltway and attack the poor soul for what….an inability to win in a purple/blue state that was overly tired of GW Bush. Geez Whiz….stop gripping and stick to the conservative principles.

It is only the most conservative principled candidate that can help right this country. Obama “lite” (read Romney) will at best slow the train going of the cliff but not redirect it.

The establishment is going to to saddle him with Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan though.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I don’t know about that. Daniels doesn’t bring him much electorally, nor Christie (no way he brings NJ into the fold — the state Dems will simply cry victoriously that Christie slashed & burned the state and then quit mid-term), nor Ryan for that matter (tho I doubt he’d take VP).

None of them give Romney what he needs — a bone thrown to the conservative base that lets them know that he knows he needs them, and also gives them hope for a future POTUS they like. McCain did this with Palin.

Also, Christie, Daniels, and Ryan don’t give Romney regional diversity. He needs a southerner or a south-westerner. Bonus for a border state VP.

Actually, I think Demint is a natural choice as a Romney VP. Tea Party cred; rock-solid conservative, small government guy; beloved by base, respected by moderates & establishment; brings legislative exp. to the ticket to balance Romney’s executive exp.

It’s amazing so many people make him out as some awesome conservative.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 11:34 PM

This is a joke, right? He voted for TARP so that the economy wouldn’t crash and basically give Obama an FDR like mandate with his filibuster-proof majority. His choice was between TARP and nothing, not TARP and some conservative alternative. He’s the only politician to take on entitlements in over a decade and the only politician to write a budget that is forward thinking enough to actually get rid of the debt without being so drastic as to allow Dems to demagogue and win (thus never balancing the budget).

If you’re criticizing him for his votes for Bush’s stuff as a new congressman, well, you’d probably have criticized him for not supporting our new Republican president at the time, and if you wouldn’t have, a lot of others on here would have. In order to make a difference you have to be in office and know when to play defense.

Even if Santorum does well in Iowa, he doesn’t have the organization in place to go anywhere else. He simply would not be able to build enough of an organization out of thin air to compete after Iowa.

Perry, on the other hand, CAN compete past Iowa. This is why Perry will outlast Santorum, even if Santorum outdoes Perry in Iowa. Santorum is a one-state pony.

After Iowa and NH, the lesser candidates will drop out, Perry will remain in, and the not-Romney vote will consolidate (hopefully around Perry). People have been counting Perry out for months, but it ain’t over yet, pardnuh.

Well, in my mind, seems like Perry should be polling ahead of Bachman, Santorum, Ron Paul, Cain when he was still in if he is truly going to be the eventual nominee. These are not world class canddiates that he’s polling behind just going with the whole “executive experience” thing.